The murky case of al-Awlaki

Our opinion: The Obama administration needs to explain, openly, its justification for killing an American citizen without trial.

You may well think that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who became a prominent figure in al-Qaida, deserved to die. That’s not, however, what the debate over his killing by the United States is about.

It’s about what the legal justification was for the United States to kill an American citizen without trial, and what this action may allow the government to believe it can do in the future.

At least some of the answers to those questions may lie in what’s described as a roughly 50-page memo that cleared the way for President Obama to order al-Awlaki’s killing. The memo, however, remains secret. The government hasn’t even officially acknowledged having a role in the killing. The best accounts of what’s in the memo so far are second-hand reports, like a New York Times story quoting unidentified people who claimed to have read it.

We understand the need for state secrets, but when a government takes an action that would normally be considered to violate civil rights and federal and international law, something more than no comment is in order. A president who promised more transparency than a previous administration that spied on citizens and couldn’t be bothered with using the secret courts set up for the very purpose of dealing with such sensitive issues should know that this matter deserves a full airing in the light of day.

There’s no question that the government viewed al-Awlaki, who was killed in Yemen on Sept. 30, as an enemy of the United States. Although he’s often described as a “radical cleric” who incited people against the West, the Treasury Department last year called him a “key leader” of the Yemen-based al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. It said he was involved “in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism — fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents.” The government linked him to some of the 9/11 hijackers and accused him of directing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed “underwear bomber” who admitted last week to trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

The Obama administration’s lawyers may well argue that al-Awlaki effectively renounced his citizenship and gave up the protections that came with it in swearing allegiance to the leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. It may argue that he made himself an enemy of the nation, that he was beyond the reach of U.S. or Yemeni law enforcement and that he presented a clear and present danger. We don’t really know.

Nor do we know whether the rationale for his killing would stand up to legal scrutiny beyond the lawyers who answer to the very government that sought a legal basis to kill an American citizen.

Beyond al-Awlaki, it’s unclear what implications this killing has for other Americans, here or abroad, whom the government might view as enemies. Just what makes a person enough of a threat to justify the president ordering his or her killing without trial?

Sources assured the Times that the memo was narrowly drawn to this case, and “did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.”

5 Responses

In the past ten years we as a nation have been directly or indirectly involved in killing of Middle Easterners who do not have acceptable political views. To make an issue about this activity when it involves an American is racist. Look at the good side, the president was not involved in water-boarding.

I think it is about time to change the law to make it an automatic revocation of American citizenship, if a person deems it their right and duty to kill their fellow citizens in the name of a god figure, ANY god figure. Not only would that cover people like al-Awlaki, but would protect us all for when the theocratic/absolutists now being whipped up into a frenzy by the corporate right propaganda machine (Tea Party types), decide to go all (NRA armed, Second Amendment remedy) postal on the rest of us.

Is anyone who pays attention to media bias and doublestandards really all that surprised that the same journalistic corp that was hysterical over spying and harsh interrogations under Bush is now completely indifferent (and even supportive) to targeted killings (even of Americans) under Obama? Ask all the questions you like, Mr. Jochnowitz. The administration won’t bother to answer and no one in the media cares about any legal or constitutional principles. They criticized Bush because they didn’t like him, regardless of what he did. They give Obama a pass because they like him, regardless of what he does. Once you figure this out everything journalists do is simple understand. In fact, once you know the facts and politics of a story, it is easy to predict how it will be reported regardless of the facts (for ex. Tea Party-dangerous and radical. Occupy Wall Street-peaceful and patriotic).

The Times Union editorial board is one of the primary reasons why you cannot trust the media anymore. The bias, double standard they present is more dangerous than all the so called “violations” of al-Awlaki’s “civil liberties”.

The bias against conservatives has become so obvious which is why the main stream media has lost it’s influence in America. Everyone sees through their agenda as primarily liberal, mostly democrats therefore they cannot be trusted to write an objective editorial anymore. Such is the case with the Times Union.

Sure, in this editorial you slap Obama’s wrist but everyone knows tomorrow you’ll be back on board slamming Republicans for every problem in America.

The problem with this type of tainted journalism is, you actually believe you’re objective. That scares me more than the killing of an American terrorist